tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post5456131022486958182..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Washington Collectors' Rights Lawyer: Stolen Articles a "strange case"Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-45521640761216223862009-06-11T08:29:34.153-07:002009-06-11T08:29:34.153-07:00"Despicable" eh? Sticks and stones, I..."Despicable" eh? Sticks and stones, I've been called worse. <br /><br />Firstly, You posted your opinion on your blog; I comment on mine on what you wrote there (you are not above commenting on my opinions most disparagingly on yours after all). I think my post makes a perfectly valid point about your reaction to this story, which I suggest is revealing of another facet of the collector mindset. <br /><br />If you don’t want your views being read and discussed and interpreted by those who do not necessarily agree with you, then why post them where people can read them? At least in discussing your views, I try always to provide a link to them so the reader can visit your blog and compare what I say with the original text (it is of course extremely rare for you and your ACCG pals to do the same when discussing mine). <br /> <br />In your post, you make some accusation against the FBI investigators which is indefensible(and actually, in itself is “obnoxious”). You make some similar accusation against the Italian authorities without checking what it was you were writing about. I see from your "addendum" that you now acknowledge that it really was about sending back to Italy objects which had been stolen from collections (which is what I had said in my blog post dated a day earlier than your own). Your original post was based on the depiction of the whole matter as some twisted ill-willed conspiracy between the FBI and the Italians to deprive US collectors of their property. Although you have edited it and added an addendum, it still does. <br /><br />[But I see you have also added an insulting comment about Joseph Sisto being “indoctrinated”, as if he has no mind or opinion of his own, why?]<br /><br />Secondly, I have read what I wrote again, and really cannot see why you say it is an “argumentum ad hominem”, for I quite clearly point out why I do not agree with your assessment of the Sisto case. <br /><br />Whether or not you think the way I write is “obnoxious” is neither here nor there. I am a simple man and say what I think. Nobody makes anyone read it. David Gill and Nathan Elkins are the polite ones, that does not stop you and your ACCG pals being extremely rude and obnoxious about all three of us in equal measure. Since I do not expect that will change, I’d say you only have yourselves to blame for the way some people, frustrated in trying to talk reason to you (plural) and meeting such reaction, treat you and the various arguments used to maintain the no-questions-asked status quo in collecting, of which your post on CPO is a part. <br /><br />Thirdly, when I say that the story is “more complex than originally reported”, I certainly do not mean that I think that your Italian cherry picking conspiracy theory is correct (take another look at the two versions, look at the <b>context</b> and think “sensitivity”; work it out for yourself what I meant). <br /><br />You ask me to not mention where you work. But then you frequently represent yourself as a collectors’ rights lawyer, so what’s the problem? I started doing this as a reaction to the fact that you cannot seem to mention certain names without prefixing them with the words “SAFE associated blogger” (or using the word “archaeologist” as though it was some kind of insult). Annoying, isn’t it? As I said, if you treat other people and their opinions, arguments and work like s**t, then it would surely be unreasonable to expect all of them to treat you any differently all the time. <br /><br /><i> please provide me with the name of your current employer so I might return the favor </i> .But Mr Tompa, you have already told your readers that people like me must be secret undercover agents of influence of “a foreign government”. You really do not expect me to reveal the identity of my “foreign paymasters” do you?Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-41546170135295808732009-06-11T06:12:46.543-07:002009-06-11T06:12:46.543-07:00Particularly in light of the NPR story posted on ...Particularly in light of the NPR story posted on your blog and with it your subsequent recognition that ‘the origins of the material seems more complex than originally reported,” I would request that you delete this obnoxious post. I find you and your continuing ad hominem attacks against me and anyone who disagrees with you utterly despicable. I would also thank you to keep my law firm out of this. My blog is a private venture of my own personal opinions. If you think it relevant to mention my law firm every time you make an unkind reference to me, please provide me with the name of your current employer so I might return the favor. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Peter TompaCultural Property Observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.com